The devices fill important collaboration and conferencing gaps. For instance, in the past, meeting participants might scribble a sketch on a traditional whiteboard and point a camera at the drawing so remote viewers can see the image. But interactive whiteboards now let remote users see the content and mark it up for two-way, real-time collaboration.

These interactive whiteboards could also replace analog whiteboards and other aging conference-room equipment.

Despite their potential, however, these devices are not for everyone. Industry analysts have cited several disadvantages of interactive whiteboards, including high costs and a lack of interoperability among some systems.

High costs could subside

When considering interactive whiteboards and other similar products, organizations are budgeting about $10,000 per meeting room, according to Nemertes Research, a tech advisory firm based in Mokena, Ill. Because of the high cost, organizations are not exactly looking to deploy these products in every meeting room, said Irwin Lazar, a Nemertes analyst.

In this video, see immersive collaboration systems in action, as Prysm and Oblong demonstrate their products.

"There's probably a lot of companies that are not going to spend the money," he said. Organizations are struggling to justify the investment. Companies have long wrestled with quantifying the value of improved collaboration.

Lazar said he expected vendors to tackle the high price point of interactive whiteboards, however. Prices could tumble, as equipment becomes more affordable and more vendors compete in the market.

Some examples of interactive whiteboards include Cisco Spark Board, Google Jamboard and Microsoft Surface Hub. Cisco and Google released their collaborative boards just this year. Microsoft started shipping the Surface Hub in 2016, and it has reportedly closed its manufacturing facility in Oregon and is moving production to China.

Overcoming cost disadvantages of interactive whiteboards

Both Cisco and Google offer 55-inch versions of their boards, each priced at nearly $5,000. A 70-inch version of Spark Board is priced at nearly $10,000. Customers also need to pay a $200 monthly subscription to Cisco's cloud, which handles the interactions between Cisco Spark software and the interactive display.

Cisco also offers an Access Plan that features no upfront hardware costs, but a payment of $380 per month for the 55-inch version and $575 per month for the 70-inch screen. Google's Jamboard has a $600 annual management and support fee. The fee is $300 if you order a Jamboard before October. The Microsoft Surface Hub 55-inch and 84-inch models are priced at $9,000 and $22,000, respectively.

The Google Jamboard features a stylus pen, 4K display and cloud storage.

Other vendors and products in the market include InFocus' Mondopad, Oblong's Mezzanine, Prysm, Nureva and Bluescape, just to name a few. In addition to paying for boards, software and other equipment, organizations might need to outfit remote workers with touch-enabled devices so they can collaborate with in-office colleagues.

To mitigate pricey outlays, organizations can consider more cost-effective options, said Tim Banting, an analyst at GlobalData Plc. As an example, he cited Kaptivo, a $400 device that digitizes dry-erase boards. Teams could couple Kaptivo with a camera and microphone from Logitech, for example. This kind of setup would not require much room remediation.

To complicate budget issues, organizations are unsure who should pay for touchscreen displays, Lazar said. For example, should IT buy the products, or do these systems fall under the facilities budget or a line of business?

Interoperability a key hurdle

In addition to cost, organizations are lamenting the lack of interoperability among some of these collaboration systems, Lazar said. To use the Spark Board, for instance, organizations need to commit to Cisco Spark software. To use the Surface Hub, unified communications customers need to commit to Skype for Business. A Google G Suite plan is required to use Jamboard.

Organizations with multivendor environments -- with a mix of Cisco and Microsoft services -- have to pick one provider. If you use Cisco for video conferencing and Microsoft for collaboration apps, which interactive whiteboard do you pick? Currently, the vendors' boards are not interoperable and probably won't be anytime soon, Lazar said.

Additionally, third-party applications might not run on some interactive whiteboards.

Despite the disadvantages of interactive whiteboards, many organizations are looking to deploy them into huddle rooms, or small meeting spaces, Banting said. Between 30 million and 50 million huddle rooms span the globe today, according to Wainhouse Research. Those numbers could increase, as organizations revamp office layouts to include smaller meeting spaces and more open work environments.

Clearly, as these numbers indicate, vendors are looking to seize this market opportunity. But not every one of those meeting rooms necessarily needs an interactive whiteboard.

Join the conversation

5 comments

Register

I agree to TechTarget’s Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and the transfer of my information to the United States for processing to provide me with relevant information as described in our Privacy Policy.

Please check the box if you want to proceed.

I agree to my information being processed by TechTarget and its Partners to contact me via phone, email, or other means regarding information relevant to my professional interests. I may unsubscribe at any time.

I have just read your article and find it a little misleading. The Span solution from Nureva is predominantly software based and to lump it in with the rest of the market is not really fair.

Have you taken into account that you can use it with existing hardware?

Also the fact that you can use it on ipads, andriod tablets, smart phones, laptops and desktops?

It does not if they they are touch screen or not.Yes Nureva do sell projection systems that provide a more immersive experience, however to compare 24 feet of real-estate that provide over 60meters of useable digital space is against an 84 inch panel is king of like holding a stamp up to a football field.if you would like to understand more then all of this can be found on their website.

Thanks for your comments, Thegibbon. Certainly some products are more interoperable than others. This article does not dissect Nureva software, but simply mentions it is one product in a vast ecosystem of products. The article does not state that Nureva specifically lacks interoperability.

This slice of the collaboration market has several products/vendors that approach collaboration a bit differently than each other. Perhaps, by now, this market has three (somewhat) distinct products: small, medium and large. For instance, there are content-sharing devices like Polycom Pano, digital whiteboards/interactive touchscreens like Cisco Spark Board and more immersive systems like Nureva or Bluescape. We tried to clarify this confusion in the first sentence of the article, i.e. there are lots of products that use different nomenclature.

But, and here's the key point, the overarching commonality among all these products is the focus on visual, remote, group-based collaboration. That's the market.

Certainly, when comparing any tech products, there's an element of apples vs. oranges. Oftentimes there are similarities and differences.

We are familiar with Nureva Span and covered it last year: https://searchunifiedcommunications.techtarget.com/photostory/450288392/Immersive-collaboration-makes-its-mark-on-the-enterprise/5/Bigness-of-virtual-canvas-offers-immersive-collaboration